August 23, 2010
Here’s an interesting post containing a whole bunch of information about traditional marriage, meaning real traditional marriage, not what is being touted today. I had known, of course, that polygyny (polygamy is multiple spouses [spice?] without specifying which sex; polyandry is multiple husbands; polygyny is multiple wives) was common in biblical times. And, of course, I had known that for much of history, especially since agrarian times, that marriage was a business deal. However, there is much about the marriage ceremony and about today’s ceremony and its origins that did surprise me. Anyway, if your idea of traditional marriage as one man marrying one woman in a house of worship, this may surprise you.
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
Perhaps this will give you something to consider the next time someone suggests that we need a constitutional amendment defining marriage. In my not so humble opinion, any couple or group of people who want to legally declare themselves life partners should be allowed to do so. The only issues are figuring out the tax code and ensuring that the law does not discriminate. If we choose to allow polygamy, the law must truly allow any number of partners of either sex. I, for one, wouldn’t want a law that specified polygyny or polyandry, but left out the other.
June 17, 2008
OK. Who out there has read my posts before and really believed I might vote Republican?
The home page for the organization that produced this video is I’m Voting Republican Website
Thanks to Tony for forwarding this along
March 23, 2008
OK. I’m an atheist. I do not even truly believe that Jesus as a flesh and blood human ever walked the planet. However, this fictional character plays a large part in many people’s lives and, unfortunately, their voting decisions. Perhaps, if people really think about Jesus when voting though they just might come up with different answers. So, I address this post to the believers.
So, contrary to my usual rants where I take a radical and non-standard stance in order to point out the violence in the Bible. In this post, I am going to hypothetically take the more mainstream view of Jesus. First, I’m going to pretend that I believe he actually existed. Then, I’m going to cherry pick the Bible, not in the way I did in my Thou Shalt Kill post, but instead, in the way that most religious people do when they respond to my usual assertions about the mythical character.
So, in short, I’m going to point to the nice things Jesus is supposed to have said. And then, given the mainstream view of Jesus, I’m going to discuss his political views and see how well they align with today’s religious right. Then, I’m going to attempt to address the issue of how Jesus might vote in an election if he were alive today. Finally, I will point out that if Christianity is about people attempting to be Jesus-like to the best of their ability, then religious Christians should vote that way. Let’s see how this goes.
Read the rest of this entry »